[kyp275]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

You can knock them out. Or, run away.

Again, you're not considering the broad implications and their practicality.

Neither are always be practical or even possible. You may not have places nearby to run TO, or you may not be able to run as fast or as long as the attacker, or you may not be capable of running AT ALL.

Similarly with "knocking them out", you think a typical 90-110 lbs. women can just "knock out" a 200 lbs. male (or two) with ease? or any elderly person? Not to mention blunt force trauma straight to the head is also very much capable of killing a person.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Now obviously, this is a simplified model

Not only simplified, but also missing just about every single factors that involves a real-life firefight. Your model may work with in a video game, but it bears no semblance to reality.

If you really want to know why, I'd be more than glad to go in-depth with you, but I'd prefer not to make these posts longer than they already are.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

It's a lot easier to kill with a gun then without a gun. If neither the assailant or the defender is armed with a gun is armed, the likelihood of death is far lower.

sigh, I'm not sure what species of human are on your planet, but I and most people would have little trouble killing one with a simple knife or a blunt instrument, or a string of rope, or just a good 'ol pillow. As a matter of fact, the latter 4 are used quite often in the commission of murder every day.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

It's more about hiding. A "home invader" is there for your valuables, and likely isn't even aware you're awake.

Actually, most home invaders target houses that they know are empty, the trouble starts when you get home invaders that don't care if the house is occupied or not.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

A hit to the side of the head will knock most everyone out.

debunked TV myth #24, next.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

If there are multiple assailants your situation is fairly hopeless anyway. If everyone has guns it's hopeless, if no one has guns it's hopeless. If you have a gun and they don't you might be able to scare them off, but that can only be ensured if the gun laws are tight.

False.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CriVUV5lh_M

one 65-yr old women vs. 5 armed robbers, guess who ran away?

You still can't get out of the rut you're stuck in, where you think in over-simplified terms and making assumptions on things you're not familiar with, and drawing your conclusion based on those flawed premises.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

With the lax gun registration regulation in the US, you're basically guaranteeing every potential criminal will be armed.

Really? you sure you want to make that claim? I suppose it's a reasonable conclusion for you to draw based on your theories.

too bad reality disagrees with you.

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011...1/crime_091911

According to the FBI, firearms were used in 67.5 percent of reported murders, 41.4 percent of reported robberies, and 20.6 percent of aggravated assaults"

So 32.5% of the murderers, 58.6% of the robbers, and 79.4% of those who assaulted another did not get your memo that they should've been using a gun

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Perhaps my scenarios are poorly thought out, I can't think of anything. But think of the dozens of countries with low rates of gun ownership and high gun control. Look at the countries that are similar in wealth to the United States, look up their homicide rates. Are people more likely to die, be assaulted or be raped in those countries, where they "can't defend themselves" or in the United States where they "can"?

When you try to make direct comparison like that, you are automatically assuming that no other factors matters at all. Population density, social culture, crime culture, economic, education, religion, and countless other factors, including gun ownership, all plays into a country's violent crime rate.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

At best you can argue that your likelihood of being raped, assaulted or killed is unrelated to gun ownership, and only related to social factors. But that means that guns don't help americans on the whole defend themselves at all!

It is not a either-or scenario as you're trying to claim, watch out for the logical fallacies again :P

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Then you agree that guns should be restricted correct? That all guns should be registered, and that all gun owners should be submitted to a psychiatric check to ensure they are of "sound mind".

I have never argued against reasonable gun policy. That being said, just because I agree that there should be reasonable gun policy doesn't mean I think what you're proposing is reasonable.

I have no issue with gun registration, provided that there is no undue cost levied during said registration, but psychiatric check? I have one word for you: GTFO.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

If you do, there isn't much debate. But if you want there to be no such mandatory registration, no resale bans, you just give carte blanche for every crazy and criminal to just go down to a gun fair and buy a gun second hand. James Holmes did it, Seung Hi Cho did it, and more in the future will do it. Both of these men bought their guns legally, even though both were mentally disturbed.

You can also GTFO with your resale ban too. See, there's plenty to debate about :P

Your argument basically boils down to "the system is imperfect, therefore we should make sweeping and overreaching changes to it!"

Guess we'd best abolish our court system too, after all, innocent people have been, and will continue to be convicted of crimes they did not commit